Cargando…

In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?

Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from elec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Passler, Stefanie, Müller, Niklas, Senner, Veit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31438600
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19173641
_version_ 1783452271773745152
author Passler, Stefanie
Müller, Niklas
Senner, Veit
author_facet Passler, Stefanie
Müller, Niklas
Senner, Veit
author_sort Passler, Stefanie
collection PubMed
description Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography (ECG), which is considered a gold standard. Twenty subjects (6 women, 14 men) completed one trial of graded cycling under laboratory conditions. In the trial, PR was recorded by two commercially available in-ear devices, the Dash Pro and the Cosinuss°One. They were compared to HR measured by a Bodyguard2 ECG. Validity of the in-ear PR measurement devices was tested by ANOVA, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman plots. Both devices achieved a MAPE ≤5%. Despite excellent to good levels of agreement, Bland–Altman plots showed that both in-ear devices tend to slightly underestimate the ECG’s HR values. It may be concluded that in-ear PPG PR measurement is a promising technique that shows accurate but imprecise results under controlled conditions. However, PPG PR measurement in the ear is sensitive to motion artefacts. Thus, accuracy and precision of the measured PR depend highly on measurement site, stress situation, and exercise.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6749408
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67494082019-09-27 In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? Passler, Stefanie Müller, Niklas Senner, Veit Sensors (Basel) Article Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography (ECG), which is considered a gold standard. Twenty subjects (6 women, 14 men) completed one trial of graded cycling under laboratory conditions. In the trial, PR was recorded by two commercially available in-ear devices, the Dash Pro and the Cosinuss°One. They were compared to HR measured by a Bodyguard2 ECG. Validity of the in-ear PR measurement devices was tested by ANOVA, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman plots. Both devices achieved a MAPE ≤5%. Despite excellent to good levels of agreement, Bland–Altman plots showed that both in-ear devices tend to slightly underestimate the ECG’s HR values. It may be concluded that in-ear PPG PR measurement is a promising technique that shows accurate but imprecise results under controlled conditions. However, PPG PR measurement in the ear is sensitive to motion artefacts. Thus, accuracy and precision of the measured PR depend highly on measurement site, stress situation, and exercise. MDPI 2019-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6749408/ /pubmed/31438600 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19173641 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Passler, Stefanie
Müller, Niklas
Senner, Veit
In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?
title In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?
title_full In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?
title_fullStr In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?
title_full_unstemmed In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?
title_short In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?
title_sort in-ear pulse rate measurement: a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31438600
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19173641
work_keys_str_mv AT passlerstefanie inearpulseratemeasurementavalidalternativetoheartratederivedfromelectrocardiography
AT mullerniklas inearpulseratemeasurementavalidalternativetoheartratederivedfromelectrocardiography
AT sennerveit inearpulseratemeasurementavalidalternativetoheartratederivedfromelectrocardiography